"The Privileged Sex", English ed., published

Book here. From the intro:

'The outline of the book is as follows. Chapter 1 sets the stage by examining several central beliefs about the oppression of women at various times and places in history, and then exposing them for the myths they are. Chapter 2 deals with the different paths that lead toward, respectively, manhood and womanhood, and shows how both nature and society have conspired to make it much harder to become, and to be, a man than a woman. Chapter 3 investigates the privileges women have historically enjoyed, and continue to enjoy, with respect to work. Chapter 4 explains how, because women have traditionally done less and easier work than men, different societies at different times and places in history have sought to ensure women’s economic welfare through support by men. Chapter 5 looks at women’s position with respect to crime and the law, and shows how laws are often drafted and applied specifically to help women. Chapter 6 shows how women have been freed from participation in war, as well as looks into the attempts to protect them against its horrors. Chapter 7 deals with the results of women being granted their privileged position, including women’s more comfortable existence, the greater attention paid to their welfare, and the longer lives they enjoy. Chapter 8 examines why women, in spite of their many privileges, continue to bemoan their lot. And finally, Chapter 9 presents my conclusions.'

Wikipedia's entry on the author is here. Interesting fellow, much of his writing is on military history.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

... women, their rights and nothing less!"

So said the actor Alan Alda, a dedicated feminist, quoting Susan B. Anthony, at a speech he once gave back in the 1980s to a cheering crowd. I know because I heard him broadcast over radio.

One need only give some thought briefly to this dictum to see where it leads. If men and women have equal rights across the board but men have nothing more while women have privileges (i.e., the implicit right to things others don't have, even if it's an alieniable right), who comes out ahead? An analogy: Two parties in a civil suit have the right to hire attorneys. One however has a lot less to spend than the other. Thus the second is definitely "privileged" heading into court because he could hire a top-flight lawyer while the first, a not-so-top-flight lawyer (assuming the lawyers' billing rates actually reflect their capabilities in the courtroom).

Most times, which way will the decision go if each party to the case stands on roughly equal legal grounds? You guessed it!

Anthony's dictum is a veiled assertion for legal and social categorical female superiority. Contrary to what some believe, her goals did not "just" include the typical fare of the day. She and her inheritors of the feminist mantle seek domination of all things and persons male. The point of that domination isn't to make life better for us, either; I can guarantee that.

Like0 Dislike0